Unofficial Transcript
AB 2072 Senate Health Hearing
June 23, 2010
(Disclaimer; This twenty-five pages transcript was prepared by an independent and private individual who does not wish to be named. It is a transcript of an official video provided by CalChannel.com found at https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/1541. This effort took two days, totaling over twenty hours to produce. The transcript was thoroughly reviewed between three to four times to ensure accuracy as best as possible. The goal here is to assist the deaf community in understanding some or all of the things that were said, discussed and done during the Senate Health hearing on 06/23/10. We are not responsible for any inaccuracy due to inaudible sound bytes and/or human errors. In respect of privacy, we have omitted personal identifications of individuals who supported or opposed the bill. We decided not to disclose this portion of information and will leave that for the State of California to use at their discretion. Thank you.)
(Note; The mark, * represents edited portion with the help of individual inputs in this thread. Thank you Mike.)
Alquist: Before we begin, I’d like to make a few comments. We have a bill before us that I know has sparked a lot of passion, on many sides of the issue. I’d also like to say that back when I was 18, I decided to volunteer for 4 years of my life while in college at the Illinois School for the Deaf, in Jacksonville, Illinois, where I went to college for my undergraduate degree. I care very much about this issue, as does assembly man Mendoza. We may have differences of opinion, and this is a democracy, and I want to be sure that we have the kind of environment here today that is respectful, and conducive for people to say what they believe, within the procedures allowed within the hearing.
I’ve asked and (inaudible) this special order. Instead of having 2 witnesses, for 2 minutes each, we will have 2 witnesses for 3 minutes each, both for support and then again for opposition. And is with the case on all our bills, everyone after that simply will state their name, and that they are in support or that they are in opposition. The sergeants will have people line up on the side of the wall, to register their support or opposition for a bill. Some other comments, we have a very long agenda. I do understand that we will be spending quite a bit of time on this bill, we do have 27 bills today. We have no bill on consent, so our committee will be hearing all of the bills. So before we get started, I’d like to talk about some of our rules. We don’t allow any signs or flash cards in the committee room, we ask that it be quiet, no cell phones, which is what we always ask. And that before we begin, that you understand what the bill with the amendments taken, really does. What I would like to avoid is a situation where people on either side of the issue, and I’ll be frank, as I always am, I’ve asked for amendments from assembly man Mendoza. The bill is in a form that I think is best for parents of babies who are deaf. We, along with this fantastic staff, committee staff, have done our very best. I don’t expect that anyone will completely agree on either side with the direction that we have taken. And, I do believe it is fair. So, I could say more, but at this point, I will ask Mr. Mendoza to speak. After he does, if there are some points that are still not clear as to what the bill currently does, I will clarify and make the points. As a former teacher, I will make them very clear. And when people come up to testify, on either side of the issue, please, the 2 people, the 3 minutes each, please limit your comments to the bill in it’s current form. That way, nobody will get confused. So with that, assembly man, if you would like to present AB 2072, file item 1.
Mendoza: Thank you, thank you madam chairman. Just to be clear, I have listed 3 witnesses, 2 minutes each, and?
Alquist: That will be fine. As long as it’s a max of 6 minutes.
Mendoza: A max of 6 minutes, and then we could, okay, great. (Inaudible) Okay, great. Thank you so much, madam chair. First of all, I would like to begin with something the committee suggested, amendments, and I must be honest with you, when I first got the committee amendments that day, I was kind of disappointed, but then I heard, when you were talking to me, and I heard what you were telling me, and I took it back to my office, I understood that we’re trying to accomplish here. And it will have to take a little bit of time, and I’m open to that. And I appreciate the amendments, I actually appreciate working with Mia and Peter for their great help, I know they’ve worked tremendously on this for the last couple of weeks, or actually longer. But, I do want to step back and say thank you, for all your help and helping this bill move along, and helping this bill be a better bill. Cause I think the end result is what we want, which is having our parents with some information when their child has been diagnosed and again, I just want to be clear that this bill is not about choosing one language option over another, this bill is solely about providing information to parents who have just learned that their child is profoundly deaf. With the committee amendments, AB 2072 would require Department of Developmental Services to develop a pamphlet that is comprehensive and provides information to parents on American Sign Language, as well as Auditory , Oral approaches. DDS will develop this pamphlet, would then put up a stakeholder group that would include representatives from various communication groups...
Alquist: You might speak a little slower for me?
Mendoza: Okay, sure. The cost of developing the pamphlet and conducting the state color?? panel, will be covered by private donations that will be deposited into a special fund. This information is to be provided by the audiologist who tells parents their child has been diagnosed as deaf or hard of hearing. That information will also be given to parents a second time when they meet with their early start provider. I introduce this bill because I met with families in our district who explained the difficulties they have in common. Many of the families that I’ve met speak Spanish as a primary language, and they told me that they had no information, especially at the time of the diagnosis. I also heard stories from parents who said they were steered away, towards to, or away from certain options, rather than being told about all the options out there. Now, that is why AB 2072 is so important. Parents have a right to know. Parents need to know about the resources that are available to their children, and parents should not be steered toward or away from any type of information. Currently, there is no consistent information provided at time of diagnosis, and nothing consistent at the hearing coordination centers. It is critical that parents receive information (inaudible) at the diagnosis. Again, this bill is not about choosing one option or encouraging parents to make a choice, but the bill simply ensures communication options have been related to parents so that they can decide what is best for their family, and their needs. Here with me, I have 3, actually 4 people, but all within the 6 minute limit. First, I have a parent of twin daughters, who will be speaking. Alicia King?? , followed by a deaf adult, John Fortias? , and an oral deaf adult, Cherry Burgman? . Thank you, madam chair.
Alquist: First witness, please?
Cherry: Hi, thank you for letting me speak here today, and I’m in support for AB 2072.
Alquist: And it will be 3 witnesses, 2 minutes each, yes.
Cherry: Thank you, and my name is Cherry Burgman, and I was born with a profound hearing loss, and without my hearing aid, I can’t hear anything. I cannot hear an alarm, I can’t hear a baby cry. (Microphone adjustment interruption) Oh, thank you. I’m here speaking to you today because my parents chose the oral option for me. Since Kindergarten, I received a complete mainstream education, and I graduated from Washington State University, and I enjoy listening to music, and to my hearing husband and my son. And they’re fun, I love talking to them. And I understand that there are those who do not choose oral option for their child, and I respect that. But what I don’t understand, is why someone would want to deprive parents of being presented with detailed information about communication options for their child. And if my parents had not known about the oral option...
Alquist: And what I might suggest is that when we have people speak, if you could just state in a positive way what you believe, rather than what somebody opposed to your position might think. And I will say that to the opposition as well. Just speak about your own, from your heart, what you believe.
Cherry: Sure, thank you. Basically, I would not be able to speak to you today, and I’m just glad that my parents had the choice and the information. Thank you.
John: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortias, I am 32 years old, and I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I’m here today in support of this bill. At a young age, when my Mom found out that I had lost my hearing, she decided that she was going to do the Oral Auditory approach, and this in part because she had prior training to my birth, she had a speech pathologist. As a result of her guidance, and some education through Oral Auditory school, I was mainstreamed in preschool and on. Some of my (inaudible) since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Wananet?? University in (Inaudible) where I was a college football player, and just a year ago, I recently graduated from law school. And continuously, from the time that I graduated from college, I’ve been continuously employed when not in school. Just most recently I’d been working as a deputy district attorney in (inaudible) county as a volunteer. Currently...
Alquist: And why are you supportive of the bill?
John: Why am I supportive of the bill?
Alquist: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.
John: It gives people an opportunity, a chance to have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be (inaudible), it would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not, I’m going off my speeches, I’m the first to admit, that I am not part of the deaf community, I don’t associate with it, but I am an advocate of you know, just the best thing, the best course of action, whatever that might be, for disabled people. And so that is a big part of why I’m here today. And...
Alquist: Just speak to me.
John: What’s that?
Alquist: I like what you’re saying, don’t look at your notes. Why are you supportive of the bill?
John: Okay, basically, what I’m getting from, is when we’re faced with such an important decision in our lives, when is not being fully informed the best solution? And it’s logical, it’s common sense, and I believe (inaudible) that being fully informed in any big decision in your life is very important, and so that is a big reason of why I’m here today in support of this bill.
Alquist: Thank you very much.
John: Thank you.
King: You’ve just heard how parents need to...
Alquist: And your name, please?
King: I’m Alicia King, and you’ve just heard how parents need to have information so that they can make an informed decision. I am a parent, I’m the mother of profoundly deaf 6 year old twin girls. Their hearing loss was discovered at birth, and when the audiologist diagnosed the girls, we were given no alternatives. Our school district did step in and offer us a sign language program, but we did not realize that there were other communication options. And we quickly found that sign language was not well suited for us, as there are no other deaf or hard of hearing people in our immediate or our extended family. It took a friend to let us know about a listening and speaking program in our area, and ultimately, that was a better choice for us. My girls are cochlear implant wearers, and by their 4th birthday, they had age appropriate speech and language skills, they’re completely mainstreamed into our neighborhood school with their hearing peers and they require limited support services. And I’m here basically to support this because it is my parental right to make decisions for my children, and it is best to do so with complete information. We live in a country that’s based on the freedom to choose, and rarely is there a situation where any one program fits everyone. For all future parents of children born with hearing loss, please give them the information that they need, to make an informed decision in a timely fashion, and one that best suits their family situation.
Alquist: Thank you very much.
Barry: Madam chair, (inaudible) 30 seconds left over?
Alquist: Yes, there is 30 seconds left over.
Barry: Okay, madam chair, members, Barry Brokaw, on behalf of the California academy of audiology, we are the licensed health care professionals that address people with hearing impairment, we’re *agnostic over the options that are available to parents, but we think they should be informed of all of the options. We treat the kids, and we strongly support this measure.
Alquist: Thank you very much. And for everyone else, who are in support, please just state your name and that you are in support.
“Madam chair, X with the California medical association, we were in support of the previous version of the bill, we’ve had a quick opportunity to look at the amendments, they seem very positive and consistent with the reasons we were supporting the bill all along, so we hope to remain supportive, and we thank the author for his leadership on this important issue.”
Alquist: Thank you. Others in support?
“X, in support of the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, in support of the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, in support of the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, in support of the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, a parent in support of the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, in support of the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, in support of the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, in support of the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, with California hospital association in support.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“I’m X, and I support the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, and I support the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, and I support the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Good afternoon, X, I support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I’m X’s mother, I support the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, California association of private school organizations, and private special education schools in support.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I’m grandmother of X, and I definitely support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X and I’m support this.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I support this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, support the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
Alquist: Is there anyone else in support? If not, we will go to the opposition, so if people at the table could leave, please, and have the witnesses in opposition.
(Clapping)
Alquist: No clapping, please. No clapping, no boo’s, just very quiet so we can all pay attention to what is going on. And what I’m going to ask, is that we adhere to the same rules, that you speak not about someone who holds an opposing point of view, but why you have the position you have. And welcome, Senator Pelanco. And what I would ask, since this is a special order, do you want to do 3 witnesses, 2 minutes each, or 2 witnesses, 3 minutes each, so I understand?
Unknown: I think we’ve pretty much, have concluded that it’s a 1 minute. We broke it up to keep it within the 6 minutes, if that’s okay, madam chair?
Alquist: Okay, so I’ll just be aware of that, and when it’s 5 minutes and 45 seconds, I’ll say it’s almost time.
Unknown: Time’s up.
Alquist: Okay.
Unknown: Madam chair, members, thank you very much. Let me acknowledge the work from staff, I think we’ve come a long ways from where the original version of the bill is. Today, you’re going to hear from the opponents. Very quickly, if I could just highlight the areas of concern, (inaudible) as it relates to the amendment, and then my supporters of the bill here, the supporters of the bill will go into detail as to the basis for their position. With regards to the first recommendation, of where the analysis would put it iin DDS, there is a strong, deeply felt opposition to that. The current program sits within the California Department of Education. The issue before you is not a medical model issue, regional centers that fall under the DDS category fit that model. As we talked to many of the senators, we’ve stressed the education component, and it’s importance, we have an existing structure in that department, we would very much ask that the bill be amended to reflect that. They’ll go in further. The other we would ask that we change visual language to include American Sign Language, it would be showing respect, be consistent to the community...
Alquist: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear, to change what?
Unknown: You use in the current language of the amended version, visual language, we would like it to be replaced to American Sign Language. This would be consistent and respect the deaf constituents. Sign language rights have been endorsed, as you know by the U.N. treaty signed by president Obama. We would also ask to change listening and spoken language, to just spoken language. And then, the real sticky bone of contention, I think has to do with the audiologist role as it relates to the information. There, we will hear from the witnesses, the importance of making sure that there is no inherent conflict, that if there is going to be a role, that it be a role that is nothing more than a referral of information that comes as a result of this body that is going to be created, and that it be done so in a manner that does not allow for any incentives whatsoever on referrals. Having said that, the witnesses are ready to address in more depth, the issues.
Tim: Good afternoon.
Alquist: Good afternoon.
Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur, I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter. I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy. We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the positive changes to the current mark up language of the bill, and it means progress, but the language of the bill still needs a little bit more work to make it so that we can really put the focus on the deaf children and getting the parents access to the information that they need. I wanted to point to a 2003 state senate resolution number 20, it formally apologized for the outrageous attempt to *socially engineer people out of *existence. The regional version of Mendoza’s AB 2072 bill leads us towards a slippery slope of *eugenics. So the proposed amendment is a very good step in the right direction. It is fair, if we have a few changes to the amendment. The proposed amendment by the health committee, it still threatens the fundamental values of a deaf education and language development, by giving audiologists the power to discriminate information for which they are not trained or licensed. The audiologists’ training gives them the buyer that’s inherently unacceptable, if the audiologist ought to have a role, it must only be to identify that child is deaf, as soon as possible, and then refer the parent to an appropriate professional or entity with a focus on the educational aspect of raising a deaf child. That needs to be determined by the panel of people who are, represented by people involved with the...
Alquist: It has been 5 minutes, you have 1 minute left.
Unknown: Sherry... Sherry. You do it. Sherry... no, Sherry, no Sherry, you present.
Alquist: You have one...
Sherry: I just want to respect the parents’ right to speak...
Alquist: There is one minute left.
Sherry: I will get right to the target and the heart of the matter, I want to thank you again for recommending the proposed amendments, and my name is Sherry Ferina, I’m here representing the California Coalition of Stakeholders of Parents, and the deaf community. We oppose, unless amended with the proposed amendment, the bill, unless it’s amended as proposed. We recommend there are 4 different changes to the amendments, we hope that the committee will adopt these recommendations, and we have papers for you so you have a hard copy of what we would like to see. So I want to emphasize with regard to our involvement and our commitment to seeing an improvement in the educational system for deaf infants and children. We have a history regarding the U.S. congress commission on education for the deaf, and their report verifying the need to identify gaps, and the reason why we need to have a system overhaul. We have the California superintendent of education, Delaine Easton, called for a task force to restructure deaf and hard of hearing programs in California...
Alquist: We’re at 6 and a half minutes, if you could complete your (inaudible).
Sherry: We have the establishment of the California deaf newborn and infant screening program, and the americans with disabilities act, and so forth, all of this points to why it’s an education issue, and why the state entity with oversight needs to be the California Department of Education.
Alquist: And in closing? Okay, we’re beyond time...
Unknown: Thank you, thank you.
Alquist: Thank you very much, if everyone else would just like to state their name, and that they are opposed to the bill, please come forward.
Unknown: Is it okay if I do it now, while I’m here?
Alquist: Pardon me?
“My name’s X...”
Alquist: Just your name and that you are opposed.
Unknown: I speak for my son also, we’re opposed to this bill.
Alquist: Thank you very much.
“Hi, my name is X, I’m deaf, and I (inaudible).”
Alquist: If we could just state our name, and that we are opposed, please.
“X and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you very much. Next, please?
“My name is X, and I oppose the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose as it is. I’m...”
Alquist: Thank you very much, next please?
“X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
“X, and I oppose.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“I represented the 100 and thousand in northern California and I represent the parents, and I oppose the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you very much, next please?
“X, and I oppose the bill.”
Alquist: Excuse me, excuse me, madam chair, I just, I notice that the T.V. screen is not picking up who is speaking, and I’m going to ask sergeants maybe, if we can either direct individuals here or at least to have the screen reflect who is testifying, because I’m hearing voices, I’m not sure either who is *presenting. Thank you very much, senator Romero, yes so if we could have the screen reflect people as they speak, yes. And if not, maybe people have to stand in a slightly different place. There, now that’s fine. We can see here. Okay?
“X, and I oppose the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, and I am against this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, X and I oppose this bill as it is currently written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“I oppose as written.”
Alquist: Your name, please?
“X.”
“I oppose this bill, X.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“My name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X.”
“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X, I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X.”
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”
Alquist: Thank you, thank you.
“My name is X, I’m against this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“ X, I’m opposed to this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as (inaudible).”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X and I’m against the current bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose the bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I’m opposed to this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and those were my children, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as it’s currently written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill, I’m a teacher for a deaf family.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I am from Fresno, California, and I oppose this bill...”
Alquist: Thank you.
“AB 2072.”
“Hi, I’m from the California association of deaf educators and we oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: And your name, please?
“My name is X.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, I’m X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you, X.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose the bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill the way it’s currently written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and no amendments, then please shred the paper.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Thank you.”
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill...”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Unless amended by the consensus.”
“Good afternoon, my name is X, as a medical student, I strongly oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X and I oppose the bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill except for amended by...”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Consensus.”
“My name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose AB 2072 as currently written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: And her last name?
“X.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless it’s amended...”
Alquist: Thank you.
“By C.E.N.I.S.”
“My name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and representing american river college, and we are against this bill unless amended.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose the bill except with amendment provided by C.N.E.I.S.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, last name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is... xmail, gmail.com, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: And what was his name? I didn’t quite catch it.
“X.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello everyone, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”
Alquist: X’s last name, please?
“Oh, I’m sorry... X.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“My name is X, and I strongly oppose this bill, AB 2072 as written.”
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, my last name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, hello, I’m X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Good afternoon, I’m X, president of Sacramento valley registry of interpreters for the deaf, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“X, american river college, I oppose the bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written. Thank you.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written.
Alquist: Thank you.
“Oh hi, my name is X, X is my last name, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I strongly oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
“Hi, my name is X, and I strongly oppose this bill.”
Alquist: Thank you.
Alquist: I’d like to make some comments about the bill, and first of all, I’d like to thank everyone. Both those in support of the bill, and those in opposition to the bill, who have testified. This is a democracy, and we really appreciate your keen interest in what I know is a very passionate issue. I’d like to explain, and first of all I’d like to say I have no idea what is going to happen to this bill today. My staff and I have worked very hard with assembly man Mendoza, to amend a bill that we believe, that I believe is fair, and good, and time sensitive, and comprehensive, to provide good information to parents with babies who are deaf. I’d like to spend 3, 4, 5 minutes, explaining what the bill in it’s current form does. And at some point, why, I think that’s a good idea. My colleagues on the committee will have full opportunity to state their opinions, and of course, assembly man Mendoza will have full opportunity to state whatever he thinks. I’m sure my staff and I, and this is really Mia and Peter, and also my chief of staff (inaudible), have spent many, many hours looking at this bill, and having a heart to heart about what is in the best interest of families, with babies who are deaf. This bill does 3 or 4 main points, and we do have enough for a quorum right now, so while we are all sitting here, I’m going to stop for 30 seconds, take the vote for a quorum, and the reason I want to do that, is that means that once we establish a quorum, then we can actually vote on bills. So, we will call for this vote.
Unknown: Senator Alquist?
Alquist: Here.
Unknown: Alquist here. Strickland? Aanestad? Sedillo? Cox? Leno?
Leno: Here.
Unknown: Leno here. (Inaudible) McCloud?
McCloud: Here.
Unknown: (Inaudible) McCloud here. Pavley?
Pavley: Here.
Unknown: Pavley here. Romero?
Romero: Here.
Unknown: Romero here.
Alquist: Thank you. We have 5 members here, that establishes the quorum. So this means that we will be able to vote on this bill when we are through with the discussion on the last bill which was speaker Perez, and then all the bills that will follow. Some of the conclusions we came to, and the process that we used, number 1, we decided that the authority for this procedure needs to be within the department of DDS, Department of Developmental Services, rather than the Department of Education. The reason I have this strong belief, is because I think DDS is best qualified in a timely, and I know that you all don’t agree with me. I believe that DDS is best qualified to be of support in these beginning years, with a child who is deaf. Second, what the bill really does, is to say that there needs to be a brochure that is better than the brochure put out by the federal government. A brochure that gives unbiased, and complete information, on all the options in one pamphlet, available to parents who, all of a sudden, don’t know where to go and want to know what options they have. It does not exclude anything, it would be objective, and this advisory committee would be established in a way that no one group would be in majority, and that there would be fair and equal balance for all people, including with American Sign Language. Which we know is in great use, and extremely valuable. I do believe that on a brochure, and we sort of crunched the time so that what we’ve said to Mr. Mendoza is that, okay, we’re going to establish this advisory committee, whatever recommendation comes out from this committee will be given to DDS. DDS will still have the authority to put in the brochure, and I will be peering over their shoulders as a good Greek yaya, a Greek grandmother, I will look to see that it is fair, objective, and that it is information that parents can use. Now, on this committee will be representatives from American Sign Language, also representatives from those who believe in Cochlear Implants, and those who believe in anything else that has to do with helping parents figure out how to best help their children. Because it is the parents’ responsibility, with good information, to do that. We have said to assembly man Mendoza, that should the bill become law, and I have no idea if it’s getting out of this committee, it may die in this committee, but I do think the issue needs to be resolved in a fair way, for the sake of the babies.
That, should the bill get out of committee, should it get out of both houses, should it be signed into law, those are a lot of shoulds, that there would be 12 months, during which, a source of funding would need to be established, which is not in conflict with any view. So it would have to be, not in conflict, with the result of then, then within another 12 month period, creating the brochure. We don’t want any conflict of interest, we want American Sign Language, we want those who believe in Cochlear, and everyone else to be able to look at this and say, yes, this benefits babies. This effects their quality of lives, this helps parents, who may not know where to go, get good information. And I would say, that if the brochure is objective, which it will be, should all the shoulds fall into place, if the information is objective, then we shouldn’t be concerned so much with who hands the brochure out. We may disagree on that, but I have a strong feeling about that, I’m also a former teacher, a former school counselor. And like you, I want what is in the best interest of the families, and of the babies, who will become adults, and we need them to function well in our society.
Mr. Mendoza, in a few minutes, after committee members, will have a chance to speak. I know that in the beginning, he was not favorable about all the amendments, but I think we have worked closely, and I think he does care on this issue. I will stop at this point, that’s not to say I may not want to say something later, if I hear something I need to talk about.
Mendoza: Madam, madam chairman, a quick question. Should I bring my witnesses up here, in case there’s questions, or should we just?
Alquist: Just for a moment, if it goes in that direction, they will be allowed to do...
Mendoza: Should I not bring them up at all?
Alquist: Well, you can bring 2 or 3 of them to sit here, that would be fine.
Mendoza: Oh, Okay.
Alquist: If you would like. Would you like 2 or 3 to sit up here with you?
Mendoza: Yeah, in case I have a question.
Alquist: Fine. And with this, I will go to my committee for any comments, concerns. Senator Romero.
Romero: Thank you, madam chair. I have looked at this bill, and I am urging the, I’d like to urge the assembly man to consider the amendments and to adopt the amendments that have been brought forward by the opposition. Madam chair, I appreciate the work of the committee, some of these I think I can share, but others I do have concerns about. As a psychologist and educator myself, I do think that it sends an, intended or not, an unintended consequence that by moving this out of the Department of Education, into DDS, it clearly establishes this in the medical model. If we keep it within the Department of Education, I think it reaffirms that language is learned. And in looking at American Sign Language, this is not just a popular language, this is the third most popular language in this country. I think it is...
(Clapping)
Alquist: Excuse me, we will have no clapping. The sergeants are here, we will have it quiet so we can all understand what is going on. Thank you very much.
Romero: So as I approach, and as I have learned quite a bit, from both the opponents and the proponents, and from mothers whom I know in my own life, the question that I start with asking is, what are we trying to fix? That’s the question that I have to ask. What are we trying to fix? Are we trying to fix deafness? And I would have to answer, if that is the question, then I would say, no. Because American Sign Language is a, maybe one that maybe many of us are not familiar with, but it is a language. It’s recognized. And if we start from the premise of asking, what are we trying to fix? Then I would have to ask, how far are we willing to go? Are we going to fix gay children? Are we going to fix dark skinned infants, and give brochures to parents saying, this is how you can bleach skin? Are we going to fix the curl of the hair? I mean, I must honestly ask this question, because I think these are some of the concerns, and I’m not saying it’s intended in this bill. But if we’re talking about fixing, those are questions even in the history of this state, that I think, look at this beautiful mural, but there’s another mural that we could perhaps paint of California. So that’s the question. What are we trying to fix? In terms of looking at the amendments, and that’s what I fundamentally believe that by moving it to DDS, it clearly establishes it in the medical model, in need of fixing something. As opposed to the Department of Education, which maintains that this is a linguistic skill ability, and opportunity to continue to oversee. I think, and I would ask the author to consider that, and the chair as well, my views.
In terms of the question of the audiologists, I do believe that this is an inherent financial conflict of interest. And I would not feel comfortable by having the audiologist with a clear financial interest, to be the gatekeepers to parents for information on issues related to hearing. In terms of, I mean there’s other issues as well that we can raise, the advisory committee that’s been proposed, I think is balanced and fair from the opponents, I would ask us to look at that. But I go back to that fundamental question, I do not understand what we are trying to fix. And it does become a question of understanding and embracing the culture of deafness, a language which exists, a language which is the third most popular in this, a language which I’ve tried to learn, in fact as well. Haven’t been good at it. So I would ask the author, I appreciate your effort, I understand, I think good intentions in bringing this forward, but I am compelled by the opposition and would ask you to consider adopting the amendments that have been offered by the opposition.
Alquist: Who else would like to speak? Senator Pavley, and then Senator Leno.
Pavley: Just briefly, I viewed this as not something to fix, but something to inform parents of options, and that’s how I looked at it. The more information is usually the better the parents, and I have nothing but respect for members of the deaf community, and families. So, it wasn’t about fixing, cause that sounds like something’s wrong. Nothing is wrong. But what’s wrong with more information to have in front of parents? But I would like a little more *protracted discussion on DDS versus Department of Education, because my understanding is, but maybe I’m wrong, is that many times the information that would be given to parents, would be when the child is very young. Several months old, or up to a year. Historically and traditionally, I didn’t think that the Department of Education was directly involved. Wouldn’t that be, for the first few years, more of a role of DDS? And so is this an indeed a real expansion of the custom and practice and tradition of the Department of Education, and the people they serve? So that’s where I was confused...
Alquist: Okay.
Pavley: And I, and that would be one issue, I’d like to discuss that a little more.
Alquist: And we’ll have a full discussion of both your comments, and Senator Romero’s and other members’. And then, if you could wait a few minutes, assembly man, then you’ll be able to address. And I understand that former Senator Dun is here? Hello. I just wanted to acknowledge you, sir. And Senator Leno, you were next.
Leno: Thank you, madam chair. I apologize to everyone here that I wasn’t here for all the testimonies, because I would have benefitted from it. I was casting votes in another committee. But I want to thank our chairwoman, for putting so much time and energy into this. I think it’s been an uncommonly productive collaboration with the author on what has become a very controversial bill, though I also want to thank the author for being open minded, and also through the process of this bill, I think a lot of consciousness has been raised in this building. And I always appreciate when I have an opportunity to see things in a broader and more sensitive way. I align my comments with Senator Romero’s, in that, short of any real concrete reasons, why DDS could better facilitate the implementation of the bill, I would, if it were a split decision, I would side with education. Impressions and perceptions can mean a lot. And I think we could, when possible, be respectful of those issues. And to approach it as a language to be learned, as Senator Romero has said. I wish I knew American Sign Language, just as I wish I knew Russian. I don’t know either, but they’re both languages to be learned. For that reason alone, I think Department of Education may be the place to be. But, as Senator Pavley suggested, maybe we need to better understand how it is going to be facilitated and implemented. And so, I’m open to that. But otherwise, this has been a very informative bill, for me. And it really is about providing more information to parents, and to families, and that’s always a good thing.
Alquist: Senator (inaudible)? No? Okay. Just a few of my thoughts, I mean, I think DDS is a better place, but that’s certainly is...
Mendoza: Can I answer some of the concerns?
Alquist: It will be the assembly man’s decision. I don’t think there’s anything to be fixed, having grown up in St. Louis, in my $12,000 dollar house where I lived for 20 years, with a family across the street where 2 of the children were deaf. It is not something to be fixed, but what we are simply trying to do, is in a time sensitive fashion, convey complete information to parents so that they have choices. And that it is unbiased information, with all the options open. And I do believe if we end up with a brochure that is unbiased, which is certainly the goal, anybody could hand it out. And certainly, it shouldn’t be just audiologists who hand it out, but anybody could hand it out. What we’re seeing right now, is, from what we’ve seen, there’s about a third of the families who are just not getting information in a timely fashion. That’s a huge amount. And that’s really what I believe this bill is about, and it’s going to be completely up to the assembly man, he’s listening to you in terms of how we proceed. And as I started out saying, I have no idea what is going to happen to this bill. I think it’s a good bill, and should it be in a different department? Well, that certainly is up to the assembly man, if you would like to speak, assembly man Mendoza.
Mendoza: Sure. I would like to address that concern and maybe let me know if that swayed you either way, that way I understand where we need to go, but the reason I believe that DDS was a provider for us, is because currently, when the child gets diagnosed as being deaf, the people handing out that information, it’s called a newborn screening program. That’s being run out of the Department of Healthcare services. So, it’s not even run out of the Department of Ed. So we’re trying to get this information out to the family at the early stages, which is not where the Department of Ed. comes in. You understand me? So this is going back to where Ms. Senator Pavley was talking about earlier in the development stages when some of these programs, some of these options are available, the family needs that information early on, when they’re 6 months old, less than a year, but they’re not getting it. When we had the *same hearing, (inaudible) both sides were talking about, we didn’t get enough information, or we got the wrong information, or we were being steered a certain way. Well, this will fix that. This will give you a pamphlet with all the information, right? So, but the reason we chose, the DDS would provide it for us, because that’s where the hearing coordination centers are run through the Department of Healthcare services, all that’s in the earlier stages, not through the Department of Ed. So that’s why, but if you think the Department of Ed, I just don’t know if they’re in charge of this right now, it’s just the reason is that DDS is more appropriate, and then they provide services, they provide referrals. They know how to maneuver people around and help them with kid services they need.
Unknown: Madam chair, if I may? Thank you. Senator Pelanco, can you give your view of that?
Pelanco: Yes. Historically, what has been taking place, is the information is provided by the California Department of Education. It involves the early start teachers, it involves and it works with providing parents with a packet, a full packet of information, currently. The parents are referred to these centers that are, 3 of them, through out the region. It’s imperative that the parent get the information as soon as possible. We all agree to that. So when we look at the process, when a child is born, the first diagnosis occurs at the hospital level. Question for the body here, is that one location where we can begin to inform and present this packet as the mother leaves? Can we do it also, even before then, at the early prenatal family services? Everyone agrees that timely information, unbiased, scientifically based, is critical to be provided to the parents. Put it into DDS, unintended consequences, perceptions, it’s a whole different population. If a child who happens to (inaudible) has disabilities, developmentally challenged disabilities, they’re going to find themselves in that particular model of care, DDS. To put everyone there, is putting it in the wrong direction, creates mis-perceptions, number 1. Number 2, it doesn’t drive to the educational enrichment of that individual child. And we can get to the core, which is, at what point is the information given, and by whom? And we argue that the current system, if we need specific days, by the time the audiologist does that examination and identifies a hearing loss and, or deafness, and at that point in time within the next 30, 48 hours, whatever the body here feels, that parent needs to be contacted, that information needs to be informed, provided again, the audiologist is not getting anything else beyond that. No consultations, no recommendations, contact to the parent with the information would be...
Mendoza: Madam, madam chair?
Alquist: And that is fair, also. Assembly man?
Mendoza: Let me address that, going back to whether it be DDS or CDE, you know what? We’re embarking on a new way here, we’re embarking on providing information for parents. I’m open to it. If it’s CDE, that’s fine, just get the information out. So when you look at the amendments, whatever they proposed, cause I haven’t seen them, whatever they don’t like about the current amendment, (inaudible) of what the chair and the committee has suggested, I’m open to that, I’m good with it. If you want CDE, fine, the CDE, but let’s get the information out, as soon as possible.
Alquist: I would be fine with Department of Education...
Mendoza: Me too.
Alquist: If it is done in a timely fashion...
Mendoza: Yes.
Alquist: Because now, it is not always done in a timely fashion.
Mendoza: That’s correct. So, I agree with madam chair, let it be in Department of Education, let it be given at the first opportunity, when the parent finds out about their child being diagnosed as deaf. We want it in their hands... (inaudible)
Alquist: So that is one point.
Mendoza: I’m open to that, that’s not a problem.
Alquist: Are there other points that, Senator Romero, that you would like to discuss?
Romero: The one invocation is that I have for the audiologist, because if you move it to the CDE, does that remove the audiologist?
Mendoza: No, well again, the intent of this bill, the intent is to have the audiologist, once they have identified the child as being deaf, they provide this information for them, right there. And you got to keep in mind, the audiologists, they’re trained medical professionals, they know about all this. That’s their job, that’s what they’ve been titled for. So, for them not to, if a parent has a question, they’re suggesting, don’t talk to them, just get the paper and run.
Alquist: Perhaps, perhaps, you, I mean, I think it’s fine if audiologists hands it out, because if it’s a fair brochure, it’ll be fine...
Mendoza: Yeah.
Alquist: But perhaps you want to take an amendment, and I think probably both of these points would be, you would promise to do before it gets to the next committee, would be that the audiologists are not doing a selling job, that it is just...
Mendoza: Of course.
Alquist: Giving the information. I know there’s some concern on that point.
Mendoza: Can I have an, excuse me, an audiologist comment on that?
Alquist: Very briefly. And then, very briefly.
Audiologist: I think audiologists as professionals, we’re not interested in benefitting financially from what these families are doing, and I think the fact we’re required to give out the information, speaks to that point. That they are giving unbiased information so that parents can make an informed decision.
Alquist: Right. And I believe that information should be given quickly, and often. So it’s not going to be just audiologists who hand it out, but if this advisory committee is done in a fair way, and it will be, and with a fair recommendation that shows both sides, all the sides. I don’t like to say both sides, because you know what? We’re talking about babies.
Mendoza: Mmhmm.
Alquist: We should all be, and we are all on the same side. Comment over here?
Sherry: Hi, yes, I just wanted to offer a response to Senator Leno and Senator Romero’s questions, and Senator Pavley also. To a technical point, for your information, related to the federal law, I.D.E.A, part C, already requires audiologists to give California Department of Education the results within 2 days. They follow up with the parents. And current California health law requires the Department of Healthcare services, audiologists give them within 1 week. So the audiologist already is required by law, to give the HCC, that’s the California Department of Healthcare services, via the HCC, provide them information, and the California Department of Education information, and they do their follow up, and provide the parents with information. The HCC has given parents 1 week for follow up, after they get the diagnosis and they follow up. And they give them an information packet.
Mendoza: Madam chairman...
Alquist: Thank you very much.
Mendoza: I’m not opposing that, that’s fine.
Alquist: I understand that, yes.
Mendoza: Information along the way, it’s all helpful.
Alquist: I understand you’re not opposing that. And thank you for the information. Okay, are there any other comments from committee? Senator Leno?
Leno: You may have already covered this in my absence, but did we resolve some of the questions regarding using ASL in place of visual language?
Mendoza: The only concern, I think with that is that we have Cued Speech, it’s also visual, and we don’t want to exclude them from just calling them ASL, you understand me?
Alquist: Please, please.
Mendoza: Again, if we let the committee or the (inaudible) committee look into that, because we want to exclude others just because we want to put on one?
Alquist: I would suggest on that point that, well, if the bill dies, it will die, but if it moves forward to the next committee, there’s still ample opportunity for Senator Pelanco, who’s a great advocate, and others, to talk with the author and I’m sure the author would be willing to keep having an open mind, as he has with me.
Mendoza: Yes, that’s fine. Thank you.
Alquist: Okay? Okay. Assembly man, (inaudible) close.
Mendoza: Again, madam speaker, madam chair, I just again, we’re just trying to get to the providing families information along the way, at every step of the way, from when they first get diagnosed of being deaf. So, anything we can do to provide the family some information, and *madam make sure this committee and everything gets established.
Alquist: And you’re willing to take the amendments of the next committee, that would be the Department of Education, and the other amendment that simply clarifies, that when the audiologists hand out the information, they’re not doing a selling job.
Mendoza: Right. Just give the parents the information and whatever they’re licensed to do, but not selling, cause that’s not their job.
Alquist: And we know everybody will be fair about this. Okay, thank you very much. The author has closed, is there a motion? It’s been moved by Senator Pavley. Senator Romero? Senator Romero?
Romero: Can I hear from Senator Pelanco with respect to the amendments that have been agreed to, and the position from the opposition at this point?
Pelanco: As I understand, the amendments are, Department of Education, and not DDS. As I understand, the issue of Visual Language, and American Sign Language to be worked on.
Alquist: (Inaudible) to be worked on.
Pelanco: To be worked on. As I understand, let’s see, the spoken, with regards to the audiologist...
Alquist: Clarifying language on that.
Pelanco: Clarifying language on that.
Mendoza: Just to be clear on that, clarifying meaning, that they’re not selling it, but they’re still presenting the information.
Alquist: Clarifying information, that they are presenting the brochure, in an unbiased format, you’ll think of better words, I’m sure.
Mendoza: Right, right.
Alquist: I’m Greek, and whatever, so. But that it’s fair, and that they’re not doing a selling job.
Mendoza: Right, okay. And they’re able to answer questions to the parents...
Alquist: If the parents ask.
Mendoza: Right.
Alquist: Will respond to the questions of the parent.
Pelanco: Madam chair, what I would also ask, is if we cannot work out the language, that the bill come back here. I think that the audiologist issue is a big issue, the U.S. federal court justice department sued on that issue, as it relates to kickbacks, and there was a settlement as the result of a whistle blower, who provided the committee with that evidence, not to say that Californian’s audiologists are guilty of that, but those who did practice it, did do it, and so we don’t want to create the incentive, or even the opportunity for that to occur. I would suggest, and I would ask the chair, that, let us, let us work out. I’m not sure that, that issue is clear yet. Come back, to the committee with regards to the final product, so that we have one more, one more hearing, I believe. And not move the bill forward, let us, we have one more hearing. If I learned anything while we’re here, members, is don’t move the bill out until you know, it’s... if we have one more week, let us work towards that. The deadlines are not upon us, but it’ll certainly put us to a position where we need to figure this out.
Mendoza: Madam, madam chair, you know, pretty much, it’s the same story they’ve been saying all along. They just want to delay it, delay it, delay it, and it really makes it more difficult to move the bill out, especially when we’ve got deadlines coming up. And right now, we’re trying to, you know, make sure we work out all the differences, and they just...
Alquist: Okay. I’d like to speak, please. Several thoughts, one, we have spent almost an hour and a half on this bill. We have 27 bills. We have many bills next week. I feel good about the amendments that we’ve taken, on the idea of the audiologists, I’m clear, that if it’s an unbiased brochure, anybody ought to be able to hand it out. And that we have to have some faith, that it will work that way.
Mendoza: Madam chair? I think audiologists are trained professionals, they are...
Alquist: You might want to stop now. Is there a motion? And Senator Aanestad is here, and he was not, well he was probably in (inaudible), so although we’ve gotten to this point, you’re on, Senator Aanestad.
Aanestad: Just one quick concern, I didn’t know in the amendments that it, the language that says that no public funds shall be used, because we might be eligible for federal funds. Has there been any thought however, of putting in a phrase, no state general fund money shall be used?
(Inaudible)
Alquist: And that is the intent. And the bill, the amendments would read in such a way that there would be, if it gets through both houses, if, if, if, and signed into law, then there would be a 12 month period where funding would need to be found for it. And then after that 12 month period, after that funding is found, then 12 months to do the brochure.
Aanestad: So we are going to say there will be no general funding?
Alquist: Yes, and does that need to be clarified?
Mendoza: We made that suggestion earlier this week, but whatever the... I’m good with that.
Alquist: And with some of the amendments we’ve taken, the bill now goes to a prose, as I understand it. So there’s actually another place, although this is the policy committee, and I think we’ve done a good job. So, anything else?
Aanestad: Move as amended.
Alquist: Okay, so it’s been moved by Senator Pavley, and Senator Aanestad as amended. Okay?
Mendoza: Thank you, madam chair.
Pelanco: (Inaudible)
Alquist: Yes, the one outstanding issue, and you will work with the author on the sign language, yes. Thank you very much, we will call for the vote now.
Unknown: Senator Alquist?
“Aye.”
Unknown: Alquist, aye.
Unknown: Strickland, Aanestad?
“Aye.”
Unknown: Aanestad, aye.
Unknown: Sedillo, Cox, Leno?
“Aye.”
Unknown: Leno, aye.
Unknown: (Inaudible) McCloud?
“Aye.”
Unknown: (Inaudible) McCloud, aye.
Unknown: Pavley?
“Aye.”
Unknown: Pavley, aye.
Unknown: Romero?
“No.”
Unknown: Romero, no.
Unknown: It’s got 5 votes.
Alquist: That bill has 5 votes, it is out. And I’d like to thank... I’m sorry, are there other members here? Who else is here? Is he in the building?
(Murmuring)
Alquist: The bill has enough votes to get out, what we are going to do, we know that Senator Sedillo is in *rules committee, we will hold it open, should he wish to add on. And I want to thank everyone, for being here, for being respectful, and for working for the good of children. And I thank you very much.
Mendoza: Thank you, madam chair, members.
